There's so much ass-covering, and covering up, when any child abuse occurs, of all types, in all places.
It's easier for every authority figure, everywhere, if it "never happened." If it "never happened", nobody has to be arsed to do anything about it.
We're experiencing this here at home. The principal at Katie's public school shook and threatened her, which was the trauma that caused Katie to have to be hospitalized. Katie's now having flashbacks and is terrified of the principal, where she wasn't at all before.
She's the one in a bazillion victims of child abuse who tell at all. I think she only did because we've been emphasizing since she's very small that whenever an adult does something that bothers you and tells you not to tell, that no matter what they say will happen if you do, TELL. We've gone over, consistently, that bad adults are good at convincing children that bad things will happen if they tell, and that even if she believes them, to trust us to believe and protect her, and TELL. So when it, unfortunately, happened---she told. Good for her!!!!!
Kids don't have the damage she clearly has if "nothing happened."
But when both Katie's therapist and the professionals at the hospital filed an abuse report with child welfare authorities, they turned the case over to police, who turned it over to the county school district----who "investigated" without ever once contacting us and whitewashed it as "unsubstantiated."
Yeah. Of course if you don't do the very minimums of looking for evidence in your "investigation", you're not going to find any, are you?
So the lawyer we consulted has us filing an ethics complaint with the state professional responsibility people and the regional accreditation organization---which has, in the past, put a whole county's accreditation on probation for a similar situation involving a single bipolar fifth grader.
Who knows if they'll do it again, but it's worth pursuing. For one thing, the professional ethics people at the state, when you complain it's completely outside the county's hands, they have the power to pull teaching credentials at their own discretion, and they're a bit like the Better Business Bureau. If you call, they will tell you if there have been any past complaints and if any investigations are ongoing.
Difference from the BBB is they won't tell you how any investigation was resolved, AND they NEVER take off the books that a complaint was filed. Someone ten years from now who calls them to ask about her will be told a complaint was filed and they did an investigation. Nothing more, but they will know there have been other complaints and to go looking for other victims who maybe couldn't prove it then, but can help establish a pattern.
Psychopaths almost never get diagnosed first hand, because they almost never go into treatment unless court ordered. They may go into treatment briefly if pressured hard by others and backed into a corner, but they get out of there as soon as possible.
Almost always, psychopaths get diagnosed as what they are by the treatment professionals treating their victims--based on the damages the victim has.
Katie's board certified psychiatrist expressed his opinion that the woman's a psychopath.
Katie's board certified psychologist tells us that the county, as well as other counties, have a history of covering up child abuse by teachers and administrators. He told James and me of several cases where the facts of the abuse were hard cold proved, the various county school boards in our area simply fired the perpetrator---who then went to get a job in some other county.
In one case, a perpetrator who was merely fired from one local county, where he got caught cold in an uncoverupable way, got hired by Cobb County (ours), where he got caught cold in an uncoverupable way again. And merely got fired again.
Our society doesn't protect children, because the people we trust with protecting our children care more about their own convenience and hushing up potential scandals than they care about the kids.
The private prisons for "troubled teens" are just the most egregious, systematic, institutionalized version of a much larger problem.
If our society gave children more enforceable rights, it would set the pattern for increasing societal respect for children's safety.
Women's rights laws, many of which were totally unrelated to spousal abuse of women and victim-blaming for rape, managed to reduce both of those things.
Civil rights laws, many of which were totally unrelated to lynchings, beatings, and the KKK managed to reduce societal tolerance of all three.
This is one of the best arguments for laws making some basic children's rights enforceable at a young age, independent from what their parents want. Rights laws have a strong history of reducing societal tolerance for abuse of the protected folks.
What age? Depends. Any kid knows as young as ten whether she's afraid to leave the country or not. Most stage kids as young as ten could decide to put their earnings in trust in a bank if they found out their parents were robbing them blind. A kid who, at ten asks to go live with a "fit" extended family member, or a "fit" other set of adult parents who don't have a near-age opposite sex kid as a risk for sexual entanglement, and says his parents are abusing him or leaving him in an abusive situation at school, church, other, should be believed for purposes of where he lives whether he can give evidence of the abuse or not. Kids don't ask to leave their parents, or be protected financially from their parents, lightly.
Any kid knows, as young as ten, whether they're being abused badly at school and need to get out of the situation. In that particular case, the system should try to fix the problem at school, then revisit it automatically in a month, physically bringing the kid into court. If the kid is still being mistreated, he should automatically get a transfer to the next closest school. If his parents can't drive him, the school system should pick him up. Most kids who get abused at one school, whose parents pull them out and transfer them to another, don't get abused there.
When a kid gets abused at school, virtually all schools and counties respond that they can't do anything about it--or weasel words that amount to the same thing. Yes, they can. They can give the kid a transfer. When they can't or won't fix the problem with less, they should be required to give that transfer---and the right to demand it should rest with the kid, not his parents. They have a conflict of interest in saying "we can't" when they really mean it's very inconvenient.
If the judge agrees that his parents really can't get him there--can't, instead of just can't be arsed to do it--then the school district should have to get him there.
Whaddya wanna bet many school districts would find that, wow, they really could stop the abuse at the kid's initial school, to the point that the kid is not telling the judge, "They're hurting me, move me." I'd bet that most would suddenly discover they could determine abusers were abusive and let them go--or not hire them in the firs-t place. I'd bet that most would suddenly discover that they could stop bullying after all. What an AMAZING development--suddenly they have all these abilities they just didn't have before.
When the kid tells the judge what's going on, the heavy presumption--for purposes of where the kid lives or goes to school--should be that the kid's is telling the truth. He said she said, even by several others, shouldn't be enough to override that presumption.
If kids had enforceable rights, child abuse would become more unacceptable to society.
The Programs, of course, would shut down overnight. One habeas corpus petition by a friend or family member, or activist organization, one briefing by the judge about his rights, and the kid would be living with other fit adults and transferred back to a real school before you could blink.
Ginger, you want legislation that would completely end the Programs? Don't think there is a possible legislative fix? That would do it. Permanently.
